Author
Topic: Have $2200 budget which lens(es) to get next? (Read 5324 times)

ryllz75

Well i've been thinking about this dilemma for a few days and have narrowed it to 3 choices. Which one would you choose below?

1. Buy the 70-200mm IS MK II for about $2099 new

2. Buy the 135L used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS $1299 new

3. Buy the 135L used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm f/4 IS $1099 new

4. Any other suggestions based on my use below?

Im new to paid photography though been a hobbyist for years. Recently upgraded to 5D MK III which makes me think that i dont need the 2.8 with IS since i can always bump up the ISO to compensate and i don't do sports photography.. Also interested with the 135L since i have never seen a bad review on it. I am and will be shooting 80% indoor/outdoor portraits for babies, engagement shoots and fitness models. I do predict that about 20-30% of my business will be weddings in 2013. As of now only have 1 wedding book and another on the way for 2013 so mostly portraits/engagement shoots at the moment.

Sell the 24-105 and 28-75, get the 70-200II 2.8 IS, 135, and 35. You should be able to pull that off. Don't be afraid to buy used, especially today at lensrentals, they're selling all kinds of canon lenses, plus an additional 10% off...

I don't get why people are afraid of the weight. I carry the 200 F2 around all day and I'm not a big guy (65 kg, 140 pounds?). I own both and the versatility of the 70-200 is awesome for weddings. And if you have the 135 + 70-200 F4 in your bag, then it's the same weight as the 2.8 but you don't have to change lenses.

I don't get why people are afraid of the weight. I carry the 200 F2 around all day and I'm not a big guy (65 kg, 140 pounds?). I own both and the versatility of the 70-200 is awesome for weddings. And if you have the 135 + 70-200 F4 in your bag, then it's the same weight as the 2.8 but you don't have to change lenses.

+1 on that.

My wife recently shot a job which involved using the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II for a week, plus using a Speedlite all the time on a gripped 5DII. (About 6000 frames over the week.) While it was tiring, it was not a problem. She uses the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II extensively for outdoor portraits.

If you are going to shoot outdoor portraits or weddings, I would not go for a 70-200mm without IS. We also got the 70-200 f/4 IS, but it is mainly a backup lens now. If you plan to go on to shoot weddings (engagement shoots are an obvious gateway drug to weddings) rather invest in the IS version. Apart from giving you a stop more light, the f/2.8 also gives you more accurate AF - the dual-cross AF points are only active for lenses which are f/2.8 or faster. That may be significant to you.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is very popular with wedding photographers for good reason. Soon after buying that lens for my wife we realised the investment was a no-brainer.

I would go for 135L + 70-200mm f/4 IS. Then you can use the 70-200 when you need the range and the 135L when you need the extra stops of light or want the bokeh.

If you want a zoom for the range, imho the 70-300L (or something other -300) would be a better choice next to the 135L.

As for the 70-200Lis2 and weight - be sure to try for yourself: Get a 5d2/3, put a 70-200Lis2 on plus a 580ex2/600rt-type flash - it does make a difference, esp. to the torque on the wrist. But if you're going pro for weddings and are not on a budget this probably is the lens to get anyway because the phase af is faster @f2.8, esp. because the 5d3 puts lenses into arbitrary groups (read the manual :-)).

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is awesome for weddings and portrait sessions, very versatile and sharp. You already have the 50mm f/1.2L for low light and soft bokeh. Down the road, I'd sell the 24-105mm and Tamron and pick up the new Canon 24-70mm II or the new Tamron 24-70mm with IS. Or, pick up the 135L later on if there are times you want to go lighter.

Well i've been thinking about this dilemma for a few days and have narrowed it to 3 choices. Which one would you choose below?

1. Buy the 70-200mm IS MK II for about $2099 new

2. Buy the 135L used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS $1299 new

3. Buy the 135L used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm f/4 IS $1099 new

4. Any other suggestions based on my use below?

Im new to paid photography though been a hobbyist for years. Recently upgraded to 5D MK III which makes me think that i dont need the 2.8 with IS since i can always bump up the ISO to compensate and i don't do sports photography.. Also interested with the 135L since i have never seen a bad review on it. I am and will be shooting 80% indoor/outdoor portraits for babies, engagement shoots and fitness models. I do predict that about 20-30% of my business will be weddings in 2013. As of now only have 1 wedding book and another on the way for 2013 so mostly portraits/engagement shoots at the moment.